Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-02-12-Speech-1-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070212.16.1-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I am pleased to be able to seize the opportunity given to me to reply to your questions in order to explain to you – perhaps more successfully than has been the case so far – the complete background to these provisions.
I now come to procedural issues, because I cannot allow it to be said that we have not complied with the procedures. A number of MEPs had some fears about the way in which the security rules to be applied in airports have been revised.
I should like to remind you of the European legal framework. Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security constitutes the framework legislation. This regulation was adopted by both the Council and the European Parliament, in accordance with the codecision procedure, in the months following on from the World Trade Centre attacks. This regulation established the principle whereby the Member States must lay down common basic rules applicable to aviation security measures, with the aim of ensuring that these measures are systematically complied with throughout the European Union.
However, as is often the case with particularly sensitive issues, this framework legislation does not take up all of the details of the common rules and of the measures laid down for the implementation of those rules. This information appears in annexes that may be adapted in accordance with the comitology procedures. In the case of aviation security, such recourse to comitology is required if certain details need to be able to be amended in due course so as to take account of new information. Many passages in these technical annexes contain sensitive data, insofar as they specify the methods for applying the security measures on the ground in airports. One cannot simply divulge certain precise information on airport security. Public access to these detailed implementing measures could help criminals and potential terrorists get round our security measures. That is why Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 adopted by the European Parliament and by the Council specifically stipulates that this information is secret and must not be published.
The rules applicable to liquids carried in hand luggage are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006 of the Commission, and not, Mr President, in Regulation (EC) No 1448/2006, as is indicated in the questions.
Regulation (EC) No 448/2006 also covers aviation security, but it lays down rules applicable to the explosive detection systems used in airports. May I point out at this stage of the debate that the nine other regulations were adopted by the European Union, that these regulations are in force, and that we followed the same procedures for this tenth regulation, which is the subject of our debate today?
Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006, which we are discussing, includes an annex classed ‘European Union restricted’, which prohibits its publication in the Official Journal. However, there are no grounds to conclude from this that the adoption of this regulation has been marred by irregularities. It was approved by the EU Member States within the Aviation Security Regulatory Committee.
It was after this committee had given its approval that Parliament, through your Committee on Transport and Tourism, received the draft regulation, pursuant to the comitology procedures laid down in Council Decision 1999/468/EC and in the framework agreement on relations between the Commission and the European Parliament. In a letter dated 4 October 2006, the Committee on Transport and Tourism informed me that Parliament had exercised its right of scrutiny and that no comment had been made on the draft measures.
It should also be noted that the bodies representing the airline operators and airports fully supported the legislative proposal and played an active part in drafting the rules. It cannot be said that this regulation was adopted secretly and undemocratically. Frankly, if there was a procedural flaw somewhere, I would be the first to acknowledge it.
The following issue concerns the transparency of the rules. As I have already said, the aviation security rules, particularly those laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006, have not been published because potential terrorists could use them as a source of information. In that respect, the Community rules are no different from the national rules on aviation security.
It should be noted, however, that this regulation is intended for the competent authority of each Member State and that, pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security, the Member States’ authorities are bound to communicate information to interested parties on a ‘need to know’ basis in accordance with the national rules applicable to the distribution of sensitive information.
I cannot let it be said that these measures were adopted in a rush and in secret, Mr President. I am going to demonstrate that they were not, even though I always find Parliament’s comments very useful and I listened to the speakers very carefully. However, I should really like to explain, first of all, why new rules restricting the presence of liquids in hand luggage on aircraft were introduced within the Community on 6 November 2006.
I must say that substantial efforts have been made and continue to be made to inform air passengers of what they can or cannot carry. What they need to know in order to prepare for their journey is pointed out to them, and if it appears that this information is not being clearly communicated to passengers, then the Commission will raise this point with the national authority in question.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have really taken it upon myself to champion passengers’ rights. I have shown this, not least in my dealings with airline operators, and we are currently conducting an investigation – I have briefed Parliament on the initiative of this investigation – to find out whether passengers’ rights are really being respected.
Thus, I feel that I cannot be suspected
of not taking an interest in passengers. On this point, the message contained in your questions to me is loud and clear. These questions highlight the difficulty of the issue, but what I would like to say to you first of all is that the procedures have been followed to the letter, in accordance with our regulations, and that, while the application of the measures is causing problems, we are ensuring and are anxious to ensure that the Member States inform us of those problems and allow us – I will make the point, moreover, by replying to the other speakers – to evaluate this arrangement, which I hope will be a temporary one, insofar as developments in technology and equipment will enable us to better detect the risks that I mentioned in liquids.
In any case, what I wish to say is that security still remains a major element of aviation transport in particular and that, while we had to take these measures, we did so with some reluctance; that there really was a risk; and what would have been said, within this European Parliament, and with good reason, if I had not made sure that the measures were consistent throughout the European Union? Just last week, I travelled to Washington, and I can tell you that we are doing everything in our power to ensure that passengers are subject to the same rules on both sides of the Atlantic. Clearly, if this were not the case, the problems would just be transferred to US flights and transport.
Mr President, I wanted to show how much of an interest I take in each of the authors and speakers who are going to take the floor and yet reiterate too that, in this difficult matter referred to me, we, together with the Commission, have genuinely complied with all the rules, and I cannot allow it to be said that the measures taken were taken hurriedly and secretively.
Firstly, what is the reason for these restrictions? The measures laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1546/2006 should enable us to face up to the new threats created by home made liquid explosives. We have worked on the basis of information communicated by the Member States, in particular the United Kingdom, which indicates that liquid explosives are a genuine threat to civil aviation.
Last summer, on 10 August 2006, the British secret services uncovered a terrorist plot aimed at blowing up several aeroplanes in mid-flight, with the aid of liquid explosives. According to the results of the investigation, the explosives were home made, and created from chemicals that are relatively easy to acquire. The police discovered liquid explosives hidden in soft drinks bottles, which appeared perfectly harmless. The old security measures would not have made it possible to detect those explosives.
Given that information on how to make these kinds of bombs may be in circulation, and that the necessary ingredients are easy to get hold of, it was concluded that the threat associated with these devices was genuine. The honourable Members must know that it is possible to disguise the colour and smell of these explosives. Furthermore, they may come not only in the form of a liquid, but also in that of a gel or cream. A solution needed to be found that was both achievable and effective. The Commission wanted, on the one hand, a consistent approach to be applied throughout the European Union and, on the other hand, passengers to clearly understand the situation, so as to provide a uniform level of security in every EU airport and on every flight.
Imagine, ladies and gentlemen, if very different rules had been laid down in the European Union, without any coordination. Imagine the confusion that that would have caused, especially in the minds of passengers. The management of airport security would have been very problematic as a result. Could these difficult issues have been avoided? Could the Commission have dared wait for a real attack to take place on board an aircraft to show that measures were necessary? Could the Commission have made do with seeing the Member States implement a patchwork of disparate security rules that would have made transiting through Europe's major airports difficult and chaotic?
The Commission thus examined this issue in cooperation with the Member States' aviation security experts and with the technical task force of the European Civil Aviation Conference, ECAC, which brings together experts from throughout Europe. Those experts advised the Commission to limit the authorised capacity of bottles containing liquids to 100 millimetres and the total volume of liquid to that held in a one-litre bag. They deemed that sufficient to prevent a home made bomb, made from liquid explosives, and of a size sufficient to cause catastrophic damage on an aeroplane, from being carried on board.
We have been in contact with the US authorities, which came to the same conclusion, and the approaches adopted on both sides of the Atlantic are compatible in every respect.
The Commission therefore decided to establish the provisions necessary to implement this coherent regulation throughout the European Union, pursuant to the framework legislation laid down in Community law."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples